The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Basil II the B.S]

Watch some liberal claiming that ''Tim Pool is a self-described alt right activist'' and a fragile white dude; because that's the level of their arguments.

[Infidel144]

Post source of Paul Joseph Watson describing himself ''alt-right'' or withdraw the filthy liberal lie; with that I don't mean ''post a lying liberal source calling PJW alt right''. Your claim is that he describes himself ''alt right''.

He did "describe" (past tense) himself as in the alt-right, some years back (summer 2016), then disavowed it within a few of months (I think after Spencer started coming to prominence). But, of course, Abdulmecid did not intend to imply that Watson still or currently describes himself as an "alt-right activist"...

[Basil II the B.S]

Indeed and that's exactly what I wanted him to do. Post an old video, to which I'd reply with a recent one and call out the intellectual dishonesty for posting outdated, no longer valid sources.

[Heathen Hammer]

Watch some liberal claiming that ''Tim Pool is a self-described alt right activist'' and a fragile white dude; because that's the level of their arguments.

It is even funnier because Tim is of mixed-race background.

[Gaidin]

Gillette isn't the only example of company that committed a fiscal suicide via going woke. A good example would be Holywood, where movies heavily infused with "wokeness", which doesn't seem to fill those movie theater seats. Same story can be said about video games as well. Ubisoft and Bioware, we are looking at you.

I'm not sure what you're including the game companies in there for. Gamer's don't care about woke characters if the stories are good. Bioware hasn't made a well put together game since their Mass Effect trilogy ended. Forget efforts at woke characters. If the game can't keep its graphics in one piece, nevermind the network or game not crashing, people aren't going to buy it. And Ubisoft seems to be able to sell at least two of their series quite well enough that they're still in business.

One company keeps their series' going, the other crashes and burns as other companies sweep up the multiplayer realm that they were trying to wedge their way into all because they can't keep their game running for more than 30 minutes. People then go back to Destiny 2 or Warframe if they can't play a game that won't play.

Be happy, your capitalism works.

[Cohors_Evocata]

Post source of Paul Joseph Watson describing himself ''alt-right'' or withdraw the filthy liberal lie; with that I don't mean ''post a lying liberal source calling PJW alt right''. Your claim is that he describes himself ''alt right''.

https://archive.fo/iNjNB
https://archive.fo/iK7kS
https://archive.fo/D7wmy

The coward deleted these tweets of course. He since claims he left the movement, but has he really changed any of his viewpoints?

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...66242822520833

[Basil II the B.S]

https://archive.fo/iNjNB
https://archive.fo/iK7kS
https://archive.fo/D7wmy

The coward deleted these tweets of course.

He did "describe" (past tense) himself as in the alt-right, some years back (summer 2016), then disavowed it within a few of months (I think after Spencer started coming to prominence). But, of course, Abdulmecid did not intend to imply that Watson still or currently describes himself as an "alt-right activist"...

Indeed and that's exactly what I wanted him to do. Post an old video, to which I'd reply with a recent one and call out the intellectual dishonesty for posting outdated, no longer valid sources.

Classic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob6boWEtaGQ

1:43

And now we play the game of... why are you posting only the old ones and not the new ones that disavow the former? Or in short, why are you trying to frame someone for something he's not? And you even call him a coward? You are slandering someone, knowing that he has long distanced himself from such people and simply because you don't like him. How can we call your argument?

I know.
Filthy liberal lies.

[Abdülmecid I]

Indeed and that's exactly what I wanted him to do. Post an old video, to which I'd reply with a recent one and call out the intellectual dishonesty for posting outdated, no longer valid sources.

So, we both agree that he did describe himself as alt-right. The fact that he later chickened out and now endorses a more politically correct euphemism for white supremacism is pretty irrelevant. I noticed that you did not address his embarrassing association with InfoWars.

As for the rest, we went through this before, didn't we?

Yes, we did. For such a vocal proponent of the far-right myth about Communists infiltrating corporations, I find your defense of them quite bizarre. Even the most determined public-relations manager of Electronic Arts would not attempt to put the blame for Battefield's failures solely on women triggering sensitive chauvinists, instead of the game's numerous bugs and stripped features. If you want another example, I could mention the more familiar case of Three Kingdoms. It's a game, where a major playable faction is dedicated to an invented female character, where women play a disproportionately significant role in military and administrative affairs and where ''bikini-mods'' have been banned by Creative Assembly. Meanwhile, Three Kingdoms has been extremely profitable, setting up new records for strategy titles. So, yeah, I insist on my suspicion that most customers are not seriously influenced by insecurities regarding their gender and their role in modern societies. By the way, you haven't replied to the fact that your own professional sources contradict your assessment and that hard data shows that the video not only did it not lead into a sale-decline, but was also massively praised by Gillette's audience.

[Cope]

So, we both agree that he did describe himself as alt-right. The fact that he later chickened out and now endorses a more politically correct euphemism for white supremacism is pretty irrelevant. I noticed that you did not address his embarrassing association with InfoWars.

You're being disingenuous. Around 2015/16 the term alt-right was used to describe disaffected young would-be conservatives who were opposed to social justice activism but saw no resistance to it through mainstream political channels. When the movement started getting traction and public attention, the liberal press sought to, and was successful in, smearing the term by repeatedly highlighting its association with the white nationalist Richard Spencer. Prior to that time, the majority of the people describing themselves as "alt-right" did not consider themselves to be, and were not, white supremacists.

[Basil II the B.S]

So, we both agree that he did describe himself as alt-right. The fact that he later chickened out and now endorses a more politically correct euphemism for white supremacism is pretty irrelevant. I noticed that you did not address his embarrassing association with InfoWars.

No, we both agree that you omitted his denouncation of the alt right because it doesn't sit well with your constant slandering of conservative commentators as white nationalists, as evidence by the fact that even after he denounced them, you still try to paint him as such. In short, anything else than the your personal preferences are ''far right''. The main reason your arguments is like that is because you have zero interest in actual arguments, you only demonize people that disagree with you, so that people have to distance themselves from them.

Zero intellectual integrity, typical race and gender Marxism, whose goal as well all know is to ethnically replace white people to install yet another attempts of failed ''ideal'' society. This time the agenda is genocide of a billion. An unmitigated evil.

Yes, we did. For such a vocal proponent of the far-right myth about Communists infiltrating corporations, I find your defense of them quite bizarre. Even the most determined public-relations manager of Electronic Arts would not attempt to put the blame for Battefield's failures solely on women triggering sensitive chauvinists, instead of the game's numerous bugs and stripped features. If you want another example, I could mention the more familiar case of Three Kingdoms. It's a game, where a major playable faction is dedicated to an invented female character, where women play a disproportionately significant role in military and administrative affairs and where ''bikini-mods'' have been banned by Creative Assembly. Meanwhile, Three Kingdoms has been extremely profitable, setting up new records for strategy titles. So, yeah, I insist on my suspicion that most customers are not seriously influenced by insecurities regarding their gender and their role in modern societies. By the way, you haven't replied to the fact that your own professional sources contradict your assessment and that hard data shows that the video not only did it not lead into a sale-decline, but was also massively praised by Gillette's audience.

And yet you felt the need to make a thread about the embarassing debacle by CA.
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...ls-Controversy
Anyway, if Three Kingdoms is woke, thanks for telling me, I won't buy it. CA hasn't made a decent game since Shogun 2 anyway. I hadn't heard much of a fuss in the gaming community so I assume it's a minor thing.

That being said, I love how you paint as ''insecurity'' the realistic threat that your side once again commits a genocides as in the past century. I can only imagine Comrade Lenin telling the Kulaks that they were fragile and insecure as your side rounded them up to be deported in Siberia. Or like Comrade Mao starved millions of his own for the Great Leap Forward; clearly the Chinese were ''insecure'' and ''fragile'', unappreciative of the ''scientific truth'' that the Comrades had for them. Or Pol Pot, or Comrade Castro, or the more revent amazing experience of Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela. Tell me Abdulmecid, how many white people does your side want to remove so that ''racism is vanquished'' and the glorious utoptian society is achieved? 100 millions? 500 millions?

Because if a bunch of liberal excrements in corporates crash their companies, I don't' care. They lose money, some get fired (yes, Marxist retards at EA got removed, just like the other vermins at Marvel were removed). If you make excuses, guess what? I don't care. The Soviet Union did as well. When communism didn't work, they made up stuff and pretended it did. Lying is endemic to your side's ideology. Even Orwell noted it, the only way the system survives is that people lie to themselves to begin with. Just like your side lies to itself and to us that this is not a Jihad against white people, males, straight people. We, who are not ideologically braindead, see it as it is. The woke crowd wants genocide. A quick walk on twitter where your side is unhinged provides all the definitive evidence. Every single element that made your side commit athrocities in the past is there: the lies, the common enemy, the collective criminalization, the victimization. Blame the Kulaks has become blame white people. Or Russia.

[Knight of Heaven]

So, to recapitulate, all serious sources agree that the trend of Gillette's sales declining continues, due to international competition and the debt of the millenial generation.

Millennial dont have money to buy razors? Because they have debt???

That might be somewhat true for the real estate industry. But Gillette razors? lol

[Basil II the B.S]

They have money for avocado toasts but not for razors. Pff. Besides, if that was even remotely true, people would be walking around with long beards. The US doesn't look like Pakistan yet. Though we if let white liberals get away with this, it will.

[Gaidin]

Millennial dont have money to buy razors? Because they have debt???

That might be somewhat true for the real estate industry. But Gillette razors? lol

They have money for razors. But what are you going to pay. ~$2.00 per razor or ~$3.00.

Again, I ask, what's Gillette's issue here. Left Woke Ad, or Right Capitalism Providing Competition.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'd pay a razor 4$ so long that it doesn't come up with some lecturing bs from entitled genocidal vermins.

[Gaidin]

I'd pay a razor 4$ so long that it doesn't come up with some lecturing bs from entitled genocidal vermins.

Except, from your point of view, that competition has been around LONG BEFORE THE AD came out, and you could...you know...switch to Right Capitalism Providing Competition in the form of cheaper razors providing equal service.

So...what the ever living are you about.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yeah capitalism says that if you make a retarded woke ad, people switch to someone else and you lose money. That's what the thread is about

[Gaidin]

Yeah capitalism says that if you make a retarded woke ad, people switch to someone else and you lose money. That's what the thread is about

Not really. Some group you don't like in a sexist fashion is apparently switching to Gillette because the ad is succeeding in ways you'd call stupid. Sad trombone noise here.

[Basil II the B.S]

Only liberals would call a 5 bn loss a ''success''. That's like it worked in the Soviet Union right? You simply rewrite the previous week number so that it was even lower and then the loss is a success. ing liberalism.

[Gaidin]

I don't care about the overall net. I care about what that particular ad is doing in this argument. Only someone uneducated thinks that the entire strategy for the moneymaking in the corporation hinges on this one ad. Did people throw products out? Yea. Who cares. Those products were already bought, money in the bank. What I find interesting is an ad targeted at men provoked women to buy in. Would that be there only ad though? Nah. Would shaving be there only market? Nah. But the ad seems to have worked in interesting ways. And of course, if it riles you up, I call it a success.

[Abdülmecid I]

...

Comparing the millions of the dead of the Chinese famines with a promotional video about toxic masculinity looks like the quintessence of fragile sensitivity and persecution complex to me. As well as a bit insulting to the victims of Maoism. That being said, I'm still not sure how the rant about 5-years old dead Lenin ordering Holodomor is even remotely relevant to my questions, which you keep avoiding (twice and counting). They're pretty simple, so let me repeat them: How do you justify the interpretation of Alex Jones' colleague about the allegedly severe consequences of the Gillette ad, when every other credible source, including your own, disputes this narrative, which is also contradicted by hard data?

That might be somewhat true for the real estate industry. But Gillette razors? lol

I think his point is that what matters most for the consumer is the price, not the moral message of the ad. Gillette tried to pander to potential customers by endorsing a part of their beliefs, in a shrewd marketing initiative that Basil naively interprets as communist infiltration, but the primary concern of the millenials is their wallet, neither toxic masculinity nor the upcoming massacre of white males. Perhaps, the subsequent melt-down of the far/alt/new/nationalist/identitarian/insert random euphemism right could reverse this trend. Personally, I was always buying the significantly cheaper Bic razors, but seeing how deeply an innocuous video triggered a certain demographic of our society, I'm seriously considering the prospect of giving a symbolic support to Gillette. Fingers crossed for their next public-relations campaign featuring George Soros trimming, in the most effeminate manner possible, Stalin's immaculate moustache.